Is free speech in the UK threatened?

[Pelle]

My mgf's son just told me about a man in Scotland being in jail for teaching his dog to heil every time he says "Sieg heil!" as a joke to annoy his gf that loves the dog. He himself calls for free speech. I call bad sense of humour. If this story is true.

 

Anyway,  GF's son is an intelligent young man but he's spending to much time on the internet listening to too much bs without really looking out for the credibility of the sources, and for a time now he's heard and been quite convinced that the laws of the free speech GB are getting ridiculously hard and that you can get sentenced for next to nothing when it comes to that. That's not the experience I've got but I've got nothing to back it up with, really. So, therefor I'm turning to you guys to either confirm him or give me some backup, depending on who's right nd who's wrong.

 

Or maybe it's a grey area.

[blandy]

No, free speech in the UK isn't threatened.

[ml1dch]

8 minutes ago, Pelle said:

My mgf's son just told me about a man in Scotland being in jail for teaching his dog to heil every time he says "Sieg heil!" as a joke to annoy his gf that loves the dog. He himself calls for free speech. I call bad sense of humour. If this story is true.

Not quite "in jail".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133

"A man who filmed a pet dog giving Nazi salutes before putting the footage on YouTube has been fined £800.

Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as "Sieg Heil" by raising its paw.

The clip was viewed more than three million times on YouTube.

Meechan, of Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, was sentenced at Airdrie Sheriff Court after being found guilty of committing a hate crime last month.

He had denied any wrong-doing and insisted he made the video, which was posted in April 2016, to annoy his girlfriend.

But Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the Communications Act that he posted a video on social media and YouTube which was grossly offensive because it was "anti-Semitic and racist in nature" and was aggravated by religious prejudice"

The gentleman in question is a proper bellend, irrespective of any free speech questions this particular incident might throw up.

Edited August 24, 2018 by ml1dch

[tonyh29]

this is what happens when you go awol for months  .. we did this discussion at the time 

 

in this instance the law got it wrong ..but the bloke was also a dick so i'd have sentenced him for that reason alone

 

I don't think freedom of speech is in danger , I think you summed it up perfectly yourself " to much time on the internet listening to too much bs without really looking out for the credibility of the source " ... people like him and Robinson , suddenly become Facebook "share if you agree" heroes to lazy people whose attention span stretches no further than 5 seconds ..when all it needed was a a few minutes to check the facts

[lapal_fan]

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

this is what happens when you go awol for months  .. we did this discussion at the time 

 

in this instance the law got it wrong ..but the bloke was also a dick so i'd have sentenced him for that reason alone

 

I don't think freedom of speech is in danger , I think you summed it up perfectly yourself " to much time on the internet listening to too much bs without really looking out for the credibility of the source " ... people like him and Robinson , suddenly become Facebook "share if you agree" heroes to lazy people whose attention span stretches no further than 5 seconds ..when all it needed was a a few minutes to check the facts

That's where I am.

Is this guy "Count dankula" an absolute cretin? Yes.  His presence online is pretty poisonous and very questionable.

Should he have been sent to prison for that "joke"? No - absolutely not. 

But you'll get the far left/right jumping on the story and running it without facts that will get picked up by Facebook moms/knobheads and it'll grow they (the guy/robinson types) become internet heroes and then you'll get small protests outside parliament about things that aren't really changing anyway, but because they're dumb **** they think they're being righteous. 

[Pelle]

Cheers! Pretty much as I expected. Interesting that hewas fined, evn thh I agree tat it was wrong to give hm even that. Well, apart from being stupid. That he should've been fined for.

 

He's actually not on facebook. He stays away from all those things. Sadly not other forums. The thing is that he's not a racist, islamofobic or homofobic, but he still listens to people who clearly are. But when I talk with him about these things he really isn't. Me and his mother are struggling to get him to start to listen to and read other things as we know that he's really above all that.

[Ingram85]

As much as I hate the alt left and the alt right in equal measure I don’t find that free speech is under threat that much. As much of a rocket polisher as that guy was it was just a joke and was a little bit funny if I’m honest and he shouldn’t have been fined let alone the threat of jail time. Are Dave TV channel and John Cleese going to be fined or arrested every time THAT episode of Fawlty Towers is on telly? 

But we live in a social media society where sjw’s spend more time looking for things to get offended about instead of living their lives and either ignoring or engaging like an adult with the things they don’t like/agree with. 

As annoying and frustrating as I find society, thankfully at the moment free speech is mostly in tact. What a lot of racist/hateful mongtards don’t realise is that while free speech let’s you say what’s on your mind it doesn’t then magically protect you from repurcussions or legal action/responses that follow. 

People need to realise they are accountable for what they say and do. If you’re a hateful word removed, say what you want to say by all means but don’t be offended when you get called out for actually being a hateful word removed.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Ingram85

[Mandy Lifeboats]

I think I have posted this explanation before. Much of our law is based upon the test of a reasonable man. If I want to express a viewpoint I can. But only in a reasonable way.  An action in my own home might be reasonable but the exact same action outside an infant school might be wholly innapropriate. 

Our right to reasonable free speech is as strong as its ever been. But we are quite rightly cracking down on idiots who think they have the right to express any view at any time they wish, wherever they wish and in a manner of their own choosing.

It's one thing to tell your MP that you feel Muslim immigration is harming the UK. Its another to scream that at the top of your voice outside a mosque. 

[sharkyvilla]

I once had a chunk of scrap hot cross bun dough that wasn't quite enough for a whole pack, so I drew swastikas instead of crosses as a similar poor-taste joke.  I didn't realise that my colleague took a photo of it, then sent it to his mate who put it up on Twitter.  **** me was I worried I'd get sacked, but luckily it didn't go viral.  These things can easily backfire on you in this day and age.  Mandy's explanation sounds fair enough to me.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 hour ago, sharkyvilla said:

I once had a chunk of scrap hot cross bun dough that wasn't quite enough for a whole pack, so I drew swastikas instead of crosses as a similar poor-taste joke.  I didn't realise that my colleague took a photo of it, then sent it to his mate who put it up on Twitter.  **** me was I worried I'd get sacked, but luckily it didn't go viral.  These things can easily backfire on you in this day and age.  Mandy's explanation sounds fair enough to me.

This is a perfect example of the reasonable man test.

A reasonable man could do this with a group of colleagues that he knows have similar type of humour. 

It's less reasonable to put it on an open Twitter account that might be viewed by anyone. 

It would be unreasonable to put it on an open Twitter account that you know is followed by a large number of Jewish People. 

Personally I would not class the Nazi Noughts and Crosses as a crime. Nor posting it on Twitter. 

It's not what you did it's the how and the why. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling mishsteaks

[maqroll]

**** words removed!

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Pelle said:

My mgf's son just told me about a man in Scotland being in jail for teaching his dog to heil every time he says "Sieg heil!" as a joke to annoy his gf that loves the dog. He himself calls for free speech. I call bad sense of humour. If this story is true.

I largely agree with people's take on freedom of speech not being under too much threat - most of the 'you can't even say x nowadays' has people saying x without being hauled up in front of the courts for it (yes they may be criticized and censured by others but that's just the response to what they've said).

Having said that, I've seen a number of people express qualms about the use of section 127 of the Communications Act (which was what this chap was done under) and especially the judgement calls necessary for deciding if something has crossed over from offensive to grossly offensive such that charges need to be brought. Not just Breitbarty-types, either.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I've seen a number of people express qualms about the use of section 127 of the Communications Act (which was what this chap was done under) and especially the judgement calls necessary for deciding if something has crossed over from offensive to grossly offensive such that charges need to be brought. Not just Breitbarty-types, either.

This is true. My perception is that while some aspects of "speech" have through social norms become unacceptable, others have transited from unacceptable to being seen as quite reasonable. So for instance once upon a time the BBC banned a sex pistols record called "Anarchy in the UK" nowadays discussion or criticism of the Royal Family is "normal". For al the "freedoms" restricted by people or the law wishing to avoid "offence" there are other "freedoms" opened up by a change in attitudes in other areas.

And at the kind of "front" of these two contrasting aspects, there is some heated debate. Refer Jamie Olivers "racist rice" 

[villa_chemist]

Part of the problem is that a lot of the information on line is American based. Freedom of speech in America means you can say anything you want which leads to alt right/left shouting vile abuse at each other, KKK hate speech and Westboro Baptist Church protesting outside funerals.

in the UK we do not (rightly imo) have freedom of speech.

[limpid]

There is no right to free speech in the UK. There is a right of free expression which isn't the same thing at all.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

3 hours ago, limpid said:

There is no right to free speech in the UK. There is a right of free expression which isn't the same thing at all.

Yes and no. 

European Human Rights documents use the wording "free expression". But if you continue reading it goes on to define what that means. That includes the right to receive and impart information. As speech is one of the main ways to do that its commonly called free speech. 

But let's get something very clear. The HRA includes qualified rights. For instance you have a qualified right to privacy. It's qualified and not absolute. Your right to privacy can (and often is) revoked in order to protect others rights and for the general public good. The most obvious example being Police CCTV filming you whilst shopping. 

In the same way your right to impart information is balanced with everyone else's rights and all other laws. Painting an offensive message on a wall could not be defended using the right to free expression. At its most basic level it's balanced against the wall owner's right to own a wall without you damaging it. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling mishsteaks

[VILLAMARV]

Short and sweet.

This thread is a great example of why I love this place sometimes.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

My home town recently had a March by members of the EDL.  In theory their proposed actions were a reasonable expression of free speech. Many locals including myself held a counter demonstration. In theory our proposed actions were a reasonable expression of free speech. The Bluetops set up a buffer zone between the 2 groups. In theory that restriction on  the demonstrations was reasonable. 

Unfortunately "duck heads" on both sides felt they had a right to shout whatever they wanted and do so in the buffer zone. When they were arrested I heard the predictable defence that the Bluetops were breaching people's Human Rights. 

One of the most common legal errors is finding one bit of law that backs up your actions and ignoring all the other laws that don't. 

I honestly feel that we presentry have the highest level of free speech ever. But that's only been achieved by considering everyone's rights even if that means a trivial restriction on yours. 

[GarethRDR]

No, but common feckin' sense is absolutely terminal here right now.

[A'Villan]

On 25/08/2018 at 02:54, limpid said:

There is no right to free speech in the UK. There is a right of free expression which isn't the same thing at all.

We just covered this at Uni. Australia is the same. I should probably read up on the policy and determine for myself what the difference is.